Students Can't Decide Manner Of Curriculum Or Time Frame To Cover Syllabus: Kerala HC Declines Student's Plea Seeking 5-Working Days A Week, Weekends Off

Justice Devan Ramachandran noted that the students could not dictate the manner in which the curriculum of the course had to be formulated and that these were matters within the policy realm to be decided by experts.

“I am persuaded to the afore view also because, the course in question is conceded to be a full time one; and hence, no student, normally and without specific permission, is entitled to either study another course, or engage in any other activity. When this factum remains uncontested, one fails to understand how the petitioner can seek that Saturdays be made a holiday”, stated the Court.

The petitioner has approached the Court claiming that if only five days were working in a week, students could do other permissible courses along with ITI to get better job opportunities.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the student had preferred a representation before the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Kerala specifying how the curriculum could be modified to reduce the number of working days in a week. It was submitted that the representation was rejected.

The Government Pleader submitted before the Court that the writ petition was not maintainable since students could not dictate the methods in which the curriculum of the Course had to be designed.

The Court found that the petitioner student had given contrasting reasons for reducing the number of working days. It noted that in the writ petition, his claim was for finding time to do additional courses for better job perspectives, however, in the representation he stated that a reduced number of working days would enable students from financially backward strata to work to obtain financial resources.

The Court stated that students cannot “decide the manner of the curriculum, or the time frame that are required to cover the syllabus, it being within the realm of the experts, who alone can make an evaluation of all the relevant and germane inputs and aspects.”

Further, the Court noted that these were matters in the policy realm and it cannot accede to the request of the student.

Accordingly, the Court closed the writ petition.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates Sherry J. Thomas, Ligish Xavier, Joemon Antony, Antony Nilton Remelo

Counsel for Respondents: Government Pleader Vidya Kuriakose

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 102

Case title: Arun Joseph v Union of India

Case number: WP(C) NO. 3767 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment